Search supported source records for a college baseball player by name. Returns identity, team, position, and traditional batting or pitching stats when the source provides them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team name to disambiguate when multiple players share a name. Optional. | |
| player | Yes | Player name (e.g., "Jac Caglianone", "Charlie Condon"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the output content (identity, team, position, stats) and the caveat that stats are returned 'when the source provides them,' which discloses variability in results. This goes beyond the annotations and schema, so a 4 is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and output. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, return content, and the source-dependent nature of stats. The annotations handle safety, and the schema covers parameters. No output schema exists, so the description adequately fills the gap without needing to detail return formats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions: 'player' and 'team' (optional for disambiguation). The tool description mentions searching by name but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific function: searching for a college baseball player by name and returning identity, team, position, and batting/pitching stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsi_get_rankings or bsi_get_schedule, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve player statistics by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools. No direct 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: game details, player stats, rankings, scoreboard, standings, team schedules, and web search. There is no overlap between these purposes, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
Six tools follow a consistent 'bsi_get_<resource>' pattern, while 'bsi_search_intel' deviates by using 'search' instead of 'get'. This is a minor inconsistency but still readable and predictable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a distinct function. The count is appropriate for a sports information server, not too thin or overbearing.
The tool set covers major aspects of college baseball: games, players, rankings, live scores, standings, schedules, and narrative context via web search. No significant gaps are apparent, and the search tool provides a fallback for any uncovered queries.
